Buccaneer replaced by Hunter

[Finningley Boy]

Has anyone got any recollections about the moment back in January or February 1980 when the entire Buccaneer fleet had to be grounded after one fell to bits over Nevada? I understand that as many Hunters as could be mustered were used as a stand in during a quite uncertain period before a decision to re-spar a select number of Buccaneers and discard all the ex-Navy examples, salt water corrosion being the reason?

FB

[t7a]

It was the beginning of February 1980 during a Red Flag exercise that a fatigue failure (nothing to do with salt water) of the main spectacle assembly caused the fatal accident to which you refer. Just about every spare Hunter was trawled from all corners to keep the Bucc force pilots and navs in flying currency. My personal favourite was a T8B which came from Boscombe and which had an incredibly powerful searchlight in the nose - good sport rattling round the low flying areas with it. The Bucc started to come back into service at the beginning of August '80.

[BEagle]

See http://www.laarbruch-museum.net/ENG/Crash%20xv345.pdf

I recall seeing a very smartly repainted single seat Hunter in 12 sqn markings, (complete with the Basil Brush emblem) It was painted in an all-over camouflage scheme and carried no external pylons or tanks. Now that must have been the dog's wotsits to fly!

Now identified as XF383 - which was actually an ex-Valley 'GT'6 which had no guns or sabrinas and must have gone like stink, particularly without tanks or pylons. Although I imagine that it normally flew with 100 gall externals.

Later it became 8506M and was used for BDR at Wittering....:( But parts of it live on in the composite FR10 XJ714 currently under restoration/repainting at East Midlands Aeropark.

[BOAC]

I think that was a long-time acquaintance Ken Tait that we lost in that crash: I do not know the Nav's name.

[Finningley Boy]

Indeed, but I do recall reading somewhere that many of the former Navy aircraft were among those gotten shot of as their airframes had a lower life remaining and some mention of salt corrosion but admittedly this latter point was perhaps coincidental?

Did you get single seat Hunters to use as well?

One more thing I couldn't recall if the incident had been fatal, my sincere apologies to those who knew the pilot and navigator, I hope I haven't been indelicate here.

FB

[dctyke]

His name was Ruston or something like that. I was out there as cover for any Ej Seat problems, I ended up staying there an awful long time assisting with the enquiry, very sad.

[BOAC]

Thanks, dc - it is amazing that Ken actually got out.

[t7a]

Yes, it was Rusty Ruston. Afraid you are wrong - Ken didn't get out RIP.

[BOAC]

Ken didn't get out - report says he did.

[green granite]

He ejected but it was outside the seat parameters and he was killed, according to flight.

[BOAC]

Yes- as I said - amazing he got out from a tumbling and breaking up ship.

[matkat]

I was a young liney out there when this tragic accident occured, from first hand knowledge Ken Tait did indeed eject and has been correctly pointed out the seat was outwith it's parameters as the aircraft was rotating at a rate (IIRC) of around a thousand degrees per second just after wing separation with a bit of luck he might have made it alas not to be. Rustie Rustom made no attempt to eject, Rusties wife was pregnant at the time with their first child. I was one of the hounered few to attend the service at Laarbruch for the two Men sadly something that remains as vivid to me today as it did on 1980.

[Geehovah]

It was a sad time. I told a story in "Phantom In Focus" about the days after the Buccs were re-cleared to fly in Germany.

[Circuit Clear]

The failure in and around rib 80 was totally unexpected and although the aircraft was believed to have been hewn out of ships metal, this accident followed on from one 7 months before involving latch pin failure.
The effort therefore to search out and eliminate repeat accidents took time and involved unprecedented deep internal examination.
The discussion of naval aircraft suffering more was a non-starter as some early airframes had negligible cracks, whereas later ( last aircraft delivered october 1976) ones had irrepairable damage. A couple of the airframes had to be shipped back from USA due to cracks found.
Once the Handling Flt flew the aircraft at auw consistent with the needs of squadrons, the future of the whole fleet could be more accurately gauged. They were dodgy days of the cold war, with the Buccs on the ground, most Harriers grounded due to pfcu failures, the F-4 fleet were losing wing tips and the Bruggen Jags were having urgent checks. This left us a couple of Andovers / Pembrokes to hold back the hordes of rowdy red rascals rendezvousing behind the HASs.
The daily rush to take a Hunter around at low level and beat up allcomers meant that the Navs quite often didn`t keep up with the hours. Most of them had 4 jugs fitted as in the hot summer of 1980, endurance meant the need for fuel. On the downside, with this configuration the handling was comparable to moving a hippo around in a shower. There were many request from crews to have no jugs or only 2, but they were invariable refused due to workload and demand for airframes.
There were some oddities in the versions that came across from the RN and other RAF units. One in particular was WV318, which if my memory is still working, all dark paintjob and only one very faint light operating underneath the airframe. No red anti-coll, no wing tip nav lights and never any landing lights!! It also had a hook, which may of course explain some of these non standard fitments!!
The other advantage of the Hunter was the opportunity to provide flights to non-aircrew on friday afternoons or landaways in UK.

[Milo Minderbinder]

In the public press at the time, the comments made were that the ex-Navy ones were actually in better nick because they'd spent less time at low level terrain contour following and so were actually less stressed than the newer ones that had gone straight to the RAF.

I'm in no position to tell the truth of this - but possibly an example of deliberate disinformation at the time?

[Lyneham Lad]

Wasn't it something to do with the difference in gust-loading between maritime and land-based ops and incorrect assumption of fatigue consumption?

[Rigga]

In order to drill and grind out areas of the spars and determine just what fatigue damage was where - large Skin Templates were made to ensure we drilled in the right places. Their correct locations (Above and below the wings) depended on their position on Skin Fasteners (Jo-Bolts) to place the template in the right place to drill through the skin and start polishing the spar fingers.

You guessed it!

Count the wrong number or fail to uncover all the fasteners under the RNs first method of anti-corrsion treatment (10 Guage paint) and that template is in the wrong place....Two Spars "Drilled" and two A/C more-or-less written off.

Another write-off was one Inner Wing Skin that peeled off when being drilled... held in place by some nifty PRC-ing! RN-BDR at its best.

Having spent four years on Whirlwinds I had arrived from Halton direct from my Fitters Course into Honingtons ASF and onto the grinding & polishing teams....it was another six months before I saw a Bucc with all its wings together in one lump.

[walbut]

I seem to remember there were several issues that led to the original airframe fatigue test at Brough not being fully representative of the fatigue loading being applied in service.

One issue was the effect of the tapered wing tip extensions which I think were added as part of the Mk 2 modifications, and changed the loading distribution on the wing.

The second was that the cockpit g meter or the fatigue meter (I can't remember which) did not properly indicate the g loads during rolling pull ups and the effect was more damaging to the aircraft than expected.

I think that there was also some concern that the original fatigue test did not properly represent the RAF's more damaging overland sorties in comparison to the RN mission profiles.

I have, in my little collection of memorabilia, one of the engine inlet guide vanes from XV345 which a colleague of mine brought back from Nevada. Geoff Clarke was the Airworthiness engineer at Brough and took part in the accident investigation in the states.

Being a Flight Systems engineer at Brough I will probably get my legs chopped off by the Structures specialists for commenting on matters outside my authority when I go into work tomorrow.

[Sir George Cayley]

I'm glad you have colleagues to be concerned about! I thought Brough was closed - delighted if I'm wrong.

SGC

[Sanf]

I have memories of this when it happened, it was my 5th birthday and we had been in Larbruuch for a year. My 'new' father BSC was out on that exercise and I still remember my mums reaction when hearing about the accident at our quarter on Trenchard Drive!! She was still fairly nervous of all things flying following my dads accident some years earlier. I knew something bad had happened, but didn't fully realise what was going on.

When Brian was over for the day recently we chatted about this, he was telling me 'his' aircraft is still out in the states as it never came back due to it being beyond repair and was never flown again. Scary stuff when you hear it first hand.

[matkat]

Sanf, I stand to be corrected but I am fairly sure they all came back, a friend of mine whom I am still in contact with stayed at Nellis to 'nurse' the grounded fleet I am certain that we would have known if any were left behind again it's over 30 years ago so would happily be wrong.

[Heathrow Harry]

i have a theory that if we'd just kept building Hunters and upgrading them as we went we'd still have a very attractive, salable and effective aircraft available to day......

[Circuit Clear]

From recollection, whilst XV and 16 were desperately trying to get more than a pair of Buccs up late in the summer of 80 as each airframe was released, 208 turned up with an 8 ship!!
They trundled into the HAS site, parked up, and headed to the soft for tea and buns. None of the engineering staff could work out how this imbalance could be!! By the time that the visitors had scoffed the lot, their aircraft had been grounded by the SENGO!! Jo-bolts missing by the dozen...
Sanf, I`m positive that the remaining aircraft came back by ship, as did a few from Germany that failed the crack depth minima. Something like 2.5 inches was the maximum allowed!!!
Although the gradual return of the Bucc meant losing some Hunters, everyone realised the cost saving of using the Hunter as a bounce and having immense fun into the bargain!

[dctyke]

Matkat:

They all came back however those that failed the crack test came by boat, and were used for spares.

I'll always remember the day that the Germany Jets were flew back to Laarbruch, everyone was out to cheer them in.

[matkat]

Yes mate I was also there, drinking dortmunder on my balcony in the towering inferno, was a bitter sweet day really having lost one of our own.

[Scruffy Fanny]

There are plenty of good websites on the Bucc. - one good one details the fate of each airframe. I think the aircraft that were grounded and never flew again were pretty random - so not all the ex Navy airframes failed some were quite new low hours aircraft think it was more a case of manufacturing defects

[walbut]

Sir George,
There are still around a 1000 of us soldiering on at Brough, well down on the 5000 or so when I started in 1970. There is very little work in Manufacturing but plenty in Engineering on the Hawk T-165 for Saudi Arabia, the T-X proposals for the USAF and support to the Hawk fleet, particularly the RAF and India. The site footprint is shrinking and I think our resident Buccaneer XV165 is under threat. The long term future of Brough now hinges on winning the T-X competition and getting a significant part of the workshare.
Walbut

[matkat]

Walbut, sorry to hear that and hope all goes well for you and the others. I spent a couple of months in Brough a few years back and have some fond memories of being there, I worked on the Hawk RCM project.

[Ignore the HUD]

I recall there was also a 16 Suadron Bucc that crashed a few months before near Jever because of the same problem. Unfortunately both the crew did not survive .

[BBadanov]

I recall there was also a 16 Suadron Bucc that crashed a few months before near Jever because of the same problem.

No, not same problem. Similar result, but not the same cause.

As has accurately been reported here, Red Flag was a mainspar problem. (16SQN in Germany was a latch pin failure.)

Re mainspar: fatigue at Brough was being monitored on an S.1 airframe flying a naval HI-LO-HI straight-in, no evasive manouevring, toss attack. The RAF S.2s of course were in the weeds, manouevring for a fun 1.5 - 2.0 hr sortie, SAPs, bounces, varied weaponry - which, of course, was the fringe benefit of the job.

[matkat]

BB absolutely correct about the causes of the accidents, it assumed (never actually proven) that the latch pin disintegrated as it was never found.

[t7a]

' it assumed (never actually proven) that the latch pin disintegrated as it was never found.'

Absolutely true matkat - even though the microswitch which should have been screwed to the top of the pin was found!

[Al R]

Innocently surfacing at Buttons Bay directly underneath a Buccaneer returning from an Op Pulsator sortie, was.. interesting.

[turbroprop]

BBadanov

I recall being told that the fatigue tester did not take into account that the S2s had a different profile wing tip that also increased the wingspan thus throwing the fatigue model out of the window.

Towards the end of its service we had aircraft fitted with S1 type wingtips, but I never found out if this was.

[turbroprop]

Re Faigue

I never found out it the revised S1 type wingtips were due to fatigue re-modelling or some other reason. I assumed the larger S2 tips first used were to increase range.

[Plastic Bonsai]

The S2 wing tips were a late modification in the program. Someone noticed that the raked back S1 tips when the wings folded could be extended at the rear ends and still fit in the Ark Royal's Hangar. There was no appreciable difference in the aircraft performance with the tip extensions but they were kept. Unfortunately the wing loading wasn't updated for the fatigue test rig. When wing strain gauge results came in from the Boscombe trials aircraft it was realised that the wing loadings were not the same as the rig and it was traced to the tip extensions.

As luck would have it the crashed aircraft was the fleet fatigue monitioring airframe so additional data was available which showed some uncleared manoeuvres were being flown on the Red Flag sortie, probably as the Aggressors had been practicing and were flying much lower on that exercise - indeed the four-ship was trying to evade an intercept when the accident happened.

A fresh airframe gave a very close match to the observed fatigue when a was put through the revised fatigue loading.

[cuefaye]

Plastic - mmm, I seem to recollect something similar in the findings. Use of rudder with large roll and high g inputs comes to mind. Good for evasion, but not the airframe.

[Rigga]

I also seem to recall discussions about the surface finish of the test model being polished and smooth, unlike production versions which carried machine marks and grooving - certainly near the Spar Fingers. A contributary factor?

[Plastic Bonsai]

There was a sharp corner at the root of the crack in the main spar which was subsequently drilled out. I don't know if there was any variation in the corner shape across airframes or what possessed anyone to put it there in the first place.

There were two sorts of weave manoeuvre - one was unload then roll which I think was shown in that Red Flag radar site film we all remember but no-one can find any more and the other was rolling whilst keeping the load on. I think the latter was the more damaging.

[BEagle]

....the other was rolling whilst keeping the load on. I think the latter was the more damaging.


It was a very long time ago, but I'm sure I recall being instructed at the Bucc OCU never to use more than half aileron above 400KIAS if pulling +4G or more....:confused:

[turbroprop]

Pulling 4g in a Bucc you must have been lucky. I had the tedious task of calculating the Fatigue Index used after each flight. It was rare to see a count of 4g as this normaly meant over stress and NDT checks as there we airframe restrictions that quite often limited the aircraft to 3G or below.

If the aircraft had an over stress indication the defence put up by the crew was the fatigue meter was in the centre of the aircraft and the G gauge was in the cockpit thus the readings would be different.

I was informed that at higher g there was a distinct buffet from the airframe but due to the g restrictions on the airframe many crews never got to experience this. However at the end of the aircraft service the last flights were very popular with the crews for some unknown reason.

[PTR 175]

All the 237 OCU Buccs were G limited to less than normal and maybe this is why BEagle recall this limitation. The whole OCU fleet was a rare old mixture of airframes and models. We still had the last one with out a bomb bay tank (2A or B not sure). It always caused confusion on the line. Most, but not all of them had the wing fold inhibited and I think two but definatly 1 had done foam strip landings at Manston. I went down to recover it.

The OCU certainly got all the crap and not only the knackered Buccs.

The Hunters were not a lot better. All different build standards. A lot of the electrical instalations and radio kit were in different locations.

35 years later I still go in that hangar regularly. I still see them as I walk in. The FLMs are still sweeping the floor with chicken ****. I am sure you can still smell OM15 in there.

[t7a]

'All the 237 OCU Buccs were G limited to less than normal and maybe this is why BEagle recall this limitation. The whole OCU fleet was a rare old mixture of airframes and models. We still had the last one with out a bomb bay tank (2A or B not sure). It always caused confusion on the line. Most, but not all of them had the wing fold inhibited and I think two but definatly 1 had done foam strip landings at Manston. I went down to recover it.'

The OCU Buccs were not G limited to less than normal. The problem BEagle referred to was to avoid roll yaw coupling. The OCU fleet post the Red Flag accident was not a mixture - they were all 2As. None, to my recollection had the wingfold inhibited, certainly not for any length of time. I can't recollect any foamed landings at Manston. Other than that, a reasonably accurate posting!

[BEagle]

When I was there in late 1976, we certainly had a mix of S2, S2A and S2B variants - and the Hunters were T7A and T8B variants.

I recall the 'differences' brief for the S2 - a verbal comment about different brakes and electrical systems and why aren't you airborne yet....:uhoh:

Surely the 'g' limit wasn't as low as +3?

[noprobs]

I didn't know Ken Tait well, but I do recall a particular flight (nearly) with him.

In July '79, I went from Gütersloh to Aviano for an air display. The weather was not at all good. On the way there, our 2 Harriers were diverted because of thunderstorms, but we eventually got to our destination. The weekend was good enough for the display, but at going home time on Monday, the weather was miserable - fairly heavy rain from about 1000' overcast. To compound matters, Italian ATC were taking some form of industrial action, limiting movements to about 1 every 30 minutes. At an appropriate time, we strapped in, sent groundcrew to cover, closed canopies, started APUs and listened out for developments.

After a while, we heard Ken's distinctive tones calling for taxi. The American ATC reply was along the lines of "I'm sorry, sir, you've missed your slot time, call again in one hour." Ken then explained at length and in colourful terms that he had already been through this whole procedure before, and due to his need to start an engine to do so, many people had suffered much discomfort, so he really needed to depart forthwith. ATC said no. The controller then called "RAFAIR c/s, you can taxi in 5 minutes if you can make that time." I, of course, replied in the affirmative and started up. Ken then came up with "Is that the Harriers?" I told him it was indeed us, to which he replied "Roger, I'm your No 3 now." I tried discussing how we might do a formation departure in the weather, but he said just to carry on, he'd look after himself. Sure enough, he taxied and lined up behind us, and off we went. That was the last we saw of him. He used his nav and radar to stay behind and below us as we proceeded in IMC across Italy. At each frequency change, he said "3", but that was all. About halfway across Italy, it became apparent that Ken wanted to follow a different route, so we started to diverge. This caused the odd ATC query of "Eh, 'ow many aircraft you got inna your formation?" countered by "2-ish". At the French FIR boundary, Ken's silence ended, as he proceeded to file an airborne flight plan. He was heading for Laarbruch, while we needed to stop at Dijon for fuel. We all got home safely, but I don't know if Ken got any comeback; I heard nothing.

Quite a character.

[Lower Hangar]

I was on the RN Bucc right up to 'our' end in 1978. The old machine although often likened to a brick s**thouse was in fact beginning to crack all over the place:

a. Ring spar cracks ( BLC ducts out and NDT checks periodically)

b. Fin Spar attachment brackets ( More periodic NDT checks)

c. Main U/C pintel cracks ( More NDT checks)

d. Arrestor Hook bracket cracks

There's probably more if somebodys got an old NDT manual

Incidentally to my recollection 237 OCU had Mk 2A's ( Non Martel) and Mk 2B's (Martel) - we had 3 on RN Unit. 809 NAS operated Mk2C's (Non Martel) and Mk 2D's (Martel)

Finally - Ken Tait and I were both at Perth Academy at the same time in the late 50's and I bumped into him when he lobbed in in a Jaguar and parked overnight in Hanger D (RNU) (lots of leaky fuel) in the mid 70's - I guess he was just about to start his Bucc conversion - we recognised each other right away.

[LOMCEVAK]

A few Buccaneer airframes were limited to 5g rather than the normal 6g although I cannot remember the reason why. With fuel in the underwing tanks the limit was 3g.

With respect to the Hunters that we flew during early 1980 while the fleet was grounded, a few were F6As which came from Brawdy but most were the ex-Valley F6s and T7s that had been in storage at Kemble for around 18 months. I finished the OCU 3 days before the tragic accident at Nellis. Luckily, I knew the UPT at Kemble and managed to go there helping with airtesting and delivering the Hunters to Honington and Laarbruch. What could have been a disasterous start to my first tour was actually great fun! I think that we had to hand back the last of the single-seaters in September but many of the T7s and T8Cs stayed within the force. The OCU kept the IFIS T7As and T8Bs and on 208 we kept 2 T7s which were great for bouncing etc.

[BBadanov]

What could have been a disasterous start to my first tour was actually great fun!

And if I remember correctly LOM, you were able to say you had the pleasure of flying just about every mark of Hunter? (Not mks 1, 2, 3 and 5 of course!)

[Lordflasheart]

I'm surprised no-one's mentioned the Green Marrows ??

[Clive Kent]

I remember 237 OCU with affection, they were great days, I was there from 1978 until 1982 as a weapons engineer. The Hunters we had after the Buccs were grounded made a pleasant change to work on, memories of the 1960's. I still have one picture of an OCU Hunter F6 or FGA9 with me at its side circa Honington 1980/1.

[cuefaye]

BBad

Nor 4 or 10? And you of all people should know that there was no Mk3!

Happy New Year!!

[BEagle]

And you of all people should know that there was no Mk3!

No Mk 3? No Mk 3??!!

Indeed there was. But only one. WB188 with a modified nose, modified windscreen, reheated Avon and side-mounted airbrakes. Which was flown by Neville Duke at 727.63 mph almost 60 years ago to win the World Air Speed Record for Great Britain.

The aircraft (minus modified windscreen) is now on display at the Tangmere Military Aviation Museum - see Hawker Hunter Mk3 | Tangmere Museum (http://www.tangmere-museum.org.uk/museum-aircraft/hawker-hunter-mk3) .

No Mk 3 indeed......:(

[cuefaye]

In the context of BBad's banter, there was no production Mk3 that my mate LOM could've flown. Calm!

Happy New Year

[BBadanov]

Nor 4 or 10? And you of all people should know that there was no Mk3!

Happy New Year.

Mk 4, cuefaye? Yes, I think he claimed that as the GA.11 was a modded F.4.
And FR.10 - I think there was one floating around he got his hands on.

[Milo Minderbinder]

In the event of a shooting war happening, would you have climbed back into the Buccs? Or were any of the Hunters war-ready?

[crobinsonh]

We where very fortunate to meet up with Rob Tait (Ken Tait's son) up at Bruntingthorpe as XX894 was the last Buccaneer that Ken Tait flew in before his accident during Red Flag.

Rob wrote a very nice piece about his memories and the experience of having a fast taxi in XX894 at Bruntingthorpe.

A Fast Taxi in Memorial to Squadron Leader K J Tait and Flt. Lt. C R Ruston (http://www.thebuccaneeraviationgroup.com/BuccaneerWebTest/Buccaneer_Rollout_Blog/Entries/2012/3/26_A_Fast_Taxi_in_Memorial_to_Squadron_Leader_K_J_Tait_and_F lt._Lt._C_R_Ruston.html)

[LOMCEVAK]

MM, the Hunters were not war goers. They were operated purely for the crews to maintain flying proficiency. Personally, I would quite happily have gone to war in a Bucc over this period.

As for Hunter marks that I flew (and I didn't start this!) I never flew an FR10 or an F4 but did fly the GA11. True, the GA11 was essentially an F4 but they all had the saw-tooth leading edge which I believe that only a few of the later F4s had. Also, I believe that the original F4s may have had the earlier standard of elevator and aileron hydroboosters for the flying controls which gave lighter control forces in manual although the ailerons, once selected into manual in flight, could not be reselected on. I have flown this mod standard in the F58 (ex-Swiss aircraft).

[cuefaye]

HNY LOM!!

I'd left Hon by the time you were flying the Hunters, but I effected their arrival!!